Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-24 - Transportation Board - Agendas & Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order - 6:00 PM B. Disclosures C. Changes to the Agenda D. Public Service Announcements E. Approval of Minutes E.1 I move to approve the June 26, 2024 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes (Ross) F. Consent Items G. Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the Board THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA TB AGENDA Wednesday, July 24, 2024 General information about the Transportation Board can be found in our Laserfiche repository. If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to comments@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day of the meeting. Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through Video Conference during the appropriate agenda items. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the City on cable channel 190. For more information please contact Nick Ross, nross@bozeman.net This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1 346 248 7799 Access code: 982 5865 6090 This is the time to comment on any non-agenda matter falling within the scope of the Transportation Board. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Board 1 H. Special Presentations I. Action Items J. FYI/Discussion J.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Gap Definition Work Session(Mastel) J.2 North 27th Avenue – Cattail to Baxter Work Session (Ross) K. Adjournment cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name, and state whether you are a resident of the city or a property owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. General public comments to the Board can be found on their Laserfiche repository page. Discussion, advice and direction on the attached gap definition memo. This board generally meets the fourth Wednesday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Citizen Advisory Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our Acting ADA Coordinator, Max Ziegler, at 406.582.2439 (TDD 406.582.2301). 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Transportation Board FROM:Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering SUBJECT:I move to approve the June 26, 2024 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes MEETING DATE:July 24, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:I move to approve the June 26, 2024 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:Minutes from the June 26, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:As recommended by the board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 062624 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes Report compiled on: July 9, 2024 3 Bozeman Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, June 26, 2024 Page 1 of 3 THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES June 26, 2024 A) 00:07:11 Call to Order - 6:00 PM Present: Bryce Gordon, Shannon Mahoney, Courtney Oyler, Kelly Pohl, Paul Reichert, Hayden Glines Absent: None Excused: Rio Roland B) 00:09:05 Disclosures Kelly Pohl was invited to speak at the Montana Festival. She spoke in an individual capacity rather than as a representative of the Transportation Board. C) 00:09:08 Changes to the Agenda 00:09:02 Motion to approve Chair Pohl asked for a motion to excuse Board Member Rio Roland from tonight's meeting. The motion carried 6 to 0. Courtney Oyler: Motion Bryce Gordon: 2nd 00:09:25 Vote on the Motion to approve Chair Pohl asked for a motion to excuse Board Member Rio Roland from tonight's meeting. The motion carried 6 to 0. The Motion carried 6 - 0. Approve: Bryce Gordon Shannon Mahoney Courtney Oyler Kelly Pohl Paul Reichert Hayden Glines 4 Bozeman Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, June 26, 2024 Page 2 of 3 Disapprove: None D) 00:09:48 Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of the May 22, 2024 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes 05222024 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes 00:09:58 Motion to approve Motion to approve the May 22, 2024 Transportation Board Meeting minutes. The motion carried 6 to 0. Paul Reichert: Motion Bryce Gordon: 2nd 00:10:08 Vote on the Motion to approve Motion to approve the May 22, 2024 Transportation Board Meeting minutes. The motion carried 6 to 0. The Motion carried 6 - 0. Approve: Bryce Gordon Shannon Mahoney Courtney Oyler Kelly Pohl Paul Reichert Hayden Glines Disapprove: None E) 00:10:56 Public Comments There was no public comment. F) 00:11:13 FYI/Discussion 00:12:22 Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering provided an FYI to the board about projects going on in the City of Bozeman. Director Ross provided a 2-month update on what is to come to the transportation board. Nick talked about the city was going to transition from chip sealing to friction sealing. There is one capital project for the year, and it is the Bogert Place Street reconstruction. The board will be provided with information on the North 27th project. Introduced our newly appointed Parking Manager, Nicholas Focken, who will attend the next board meeting and will discuss parking rates. There was a walk-through of the Fowler Corridor, and it was a massive success. There was discussion on the tour about having a noncontinuous shared use path along Fowler and sidewalks on both sides. A final decision on the shared use path and sidewalks is forthcoming. 00:20:46 Board Discussion on the 30% shared use path on the Fowler Project. Is going to consist of a bike path and sidewalks on both sides of the street or is it going to alternate side of the street and be either a bike path or a sidewalk. 5 Bozeman Transportation Board Meeting Minutes, June 26, 2024 Page 3 of 3 F.1 00:50:47 FY25-26 Biennium Budget, Allowable Uses of Impact Fees, and FY26-30 Capital Improvement Plan Primer 00:55:04 Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering presented the FY25-26 Biennium Budget, Allowable Uses of Impact Fees, and FY26-30 Capital Improvement Plan Primer. Impact fees can only be used for street development within the current, existing developed area and capacity expansion. 01:01:05 Questions of Staff. Paul Reichert had a question regarding the use of urban funds regarding the term they are available for use, which is usually five years. He also had questions regarding the amount of impact fees in the 25-26 budget. He also had a question regarding the funding of the MPO and confirmed that it was all federal funds rather than city funds. Other questions were posed by Bryce Gordon, Kelly Pohl, Courtney Oyler and Shannon Mahoney 01:17:12 Public Comment 01:17:23 Marilee Brown, Public Comment Marilee commented on the grant funding and how the funds can be spent. One example she provided was building a sidewalk on Haggerty Lane. She encouraged that a motion be sent to commission about how more funding is needed for multi-modal projects. F.2 01:20:06 Meet and Greet with Jeff Butts, Manager, Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization. Director Ross explained the responsibilities of the MPO and how it is funded. 01:28:17 Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering introduced the new MPO Manager, Jeff Butts to the Transportation Board. 01:29:00 Jeff Butts, MPO Manager introduced himself to the board. 01:31:40 Questions of Staff. Paul Reichert had comments regarding the design of land use. Kelly Pohl had questions regarding how the board could support the MPO. Courtney Oyler had a question regarding a past project Jeff had worked on and why he was excited about it. G) 01:40:40 Adjournment This board generally meets the fourth Wednesday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. 6 Memorandum REPORT TO:Transportation Board FROM:Candace Mastel, TDM Coordinator SUBJECT:Pedestrian and Bicycle Gap Definition Work Session MEETING DATE:July 24, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Discussion, advice and direction on the attached gap definition memo. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.2 High Quality Urban Approach: Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods. BACKGROUND:In late 2022, the Bozeman City Commission requested that staff pursue a gap analysis study to ascertain what areas within the City were experiencing gap or connectivity issues in relation to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Closing those physical gaps was identified as an important area to focus infrastructure improvements to provide a more connected and safe system for active transportation and mobility in the community. The project was added to the Capital Improvements Plan for fiscal years 2024 through 2028 as line-item A&C026, “Bike/Ped Gap Analysis.” City Staff regularly use mapping tools and adopted plans to identify the areas where connectivity is missing between facilities. However, these mapping tools and plans have become dated and the need for a more robust mapping effort and prioritization tool has been identified as necessary to compliment the capital improvement planning and development review processes. During the project work plan development process the consultant committed to providing a gap identification memo in order to establish a common understanding of the different types of gaps that exist in our active transportation system so that the project team could have comprehensive information when analyzing the entire system. The gap definition process will include input from internal partners like the Transportation Board and City Commission, and external partners such (but not inclusive) as community organizations, active transportation advocates, the school district, Streamline, and the general public. This draft gap definition memo outlines the main types of gaps and gives examples of each for reference. Discussion of these gaps includes those presented plus any that have not been identified. 7 The City Commission and City Staff are committed to prioritizing active transportation facilities in the community and working to close the gaps to allow residents to access workplaces, essential services, schools, parks, and other destinations. All recently adopted plans, including but not limited to the Climate Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation Plan (PRAT) support improving connectivity and closing the gaps throughout the community. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: Bozeman Gap Definition Memo ADA 071724.pdf Report compiled on: July 17, 2024 8 1 City of Bozeman Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Definitions 15 July, 2024 Prepared by Joe Gilpin, Mark Egge Prior to full analysis of the existing active transportation network, it is necessary for City staff and the consultant team to have a common understanding of the types of and the definition of each of the types of gaps to be identified. During the proposal phase, a list of potential gap types with a brief description of each was provided as examples of types of gaps that could be utilized within this project. From the project kickoff meeting it was acknowledged that it was desirable to the City of Bozeman that these gaps be useful, actionable, and leave the City with a manageable tool that can continue to be updated internally. Based on this objective, each of the potential gap types is further defined and expanded upon within this memo. It is the objective of this memo and the review meeting that will follow it to refine the gap types and to better define how each will be identified and utilized within the prioritization process. A gap is a section of missing active transportation facilities between existing built facilities, or extensions thereof to a logical destination. For the purposes of this project, we have defined several specific types of gaps: The gap types are: 1. Spot Gap – Key focal points, such as crossings or intersections that lack appropriate accommodations for comfortable pedestrian or bicycle travel. 2. Linear Gaps – Sections of missing segments of sidewalk, trail, bicycle lane, or shared use path that create gaps between existing built facilities. 3. Area Gaps – Full neighborhoods or areas of town that have few to no sidewalks (such as the New Hyalite View subdivision) or areas that lack any comfortable bicycle facilities (such as Downtown Bozeman). 4. Experiential Gap – Existing sections of street or trail which do not offer as comfortable or attractive an experience as upstream and downstream segments. This may result in some types of users to not travel due to a reduction in experience quality. 5. Network Gap – Opportunities to enhance existing active transportation networks or sections of disconnected, but previously planned transportation facilities, such as within future subdivisions or to be included with future roadway improvement projects. From a practical user perspective, these gaps would be identified as locations needing a crosswalk, sidewalk, natural surface path, paved path, bicycle lane or other on-street bicycle facility, or enhanced crossing to improve network connectivity and user experience. Each gap type is provided additional context (to be confirmed or altered by the City) via a one- page cut sheet that provides: 9 2 1. A proposed definition of the gap type . 2. City utility criteria where issues are noted that may influence if or how this gap type is utilized. 3. Generic scenario examples of instances of this gap type as well as one or two examples of a location within Bozeman that would qualify as this type of gap. 4. Selected attributes describing some of the features that may add context to the gap that will later be useful in the prioritization framework. 5. City implementation information where thoughts are provided about how this gap type could ultimately influence project implementation. Items #2 and #5 are intended to inspire discussion about how each gap type will be used and to foster discussions about how it can use existing data sources and not be unnecessarily complex to collect and maintain. 10 3 Spot Gap Description: Defined as key focal points in the active transportation network that lack active transportation accommodations that would create safe and comfortable movement; typically, an intersection or crossing point. City Utility: While virtually any uncontrolled intersection could qualify, this gap type should be limited to more prominent locations whereby prioritization and implementation would have a significant impact on the active transportation network. There will need to be a useful criterion developed to limit this type of gap to avoid saturation and help the city focus on high priority gaps. Includes: • Missing crosswalk on one or more legs of intersection • Natural surface trail terminates into the street without a continuation • Existing crosswalk on a busy street that really should have additional improvements e.g. geometric or beacon/signal enhancements. • Crossing at uncontrolled intersection necessary to facilitate a designated route such as a shared use path or bicycle boulevard. • New bridge/tunnel to overcome barrier such as major road/creek, etc. • Desired crossing within long road corridor far from existing crossings (indicated by desire line or Strava Metro data, e.g. Huffine between 23rd and College) Example: Oak Street just west of Ryunsun Way where a natural surface trail terminates into the street without a continuation. Geometric Representation: Point Suggested Attributes: Distinguish by spot gap type including features like trail/midblock, grade separation, uncontrolled vs existing signal. City Implementation: Spot gaps will require engineering study and design. Ultimate locations and level of treatment may ultimately differ from the gap location defined in this study. Additionally, addressing spot gaps may require internal policy changes such as mid- block crossing provision, or thresholds for RRFB, PHB and other pedestrian crossing countermeasures. 11 4 Linear Gap Description: Sections of missing active transportation facilities between existing built facilities, or extensions thereof to a logical destination. Applicable to sidewalks, natural surface trails, shared use paths and on-street bikeways. Linear gaps may be along one or both sides of a street or exist outside of a street right of way. This gap type includes any missing sidewalk within the city limits on an existing roadway on the same side of a given street. This project is inclusive of inclusive of all streets of all functional classifications within the Bozeman city limits. Each side of the street is assessed separately. City Utility: As the project progresses, it may be more beneficial to focus this gap definition to linear gaps that would need specific city-led implementation outside of a CIP, MDT or developer filled context. This gap type does not include sidewalks, or unbuilt streets that will ultimately be extended through new development. Includes: • Missing segments of sidewalks on local streets and within subdivisions • Missing segments of sidewalk along collector / arterial roadways • Missing trail between existing segments such as the Gallagator trail from Kagy Blvd to south through the Museum of the Rockies campus. • A shared use path that is interrupted along a street • Terminations or gaps in bicycle lanes, sometimes indicated by “Bike Lane Ends” sign • Absence of bike lane or shared use path along collector/arterial road • Potential connections between land uses such as parks, open spaces, schools, shopping areas, etc. Example 1: West Babcock Street west of S 11th Ave. Example of a street that would likely have sidewalks added as part of a roadway upgrade project – though it may also make sense to add sidewalks as a standalone project as it is a significant gap in the network in a built-up area of the city. Example 2: Bike lane on Kagy Boulevard from Greek Way to one block East of South 3rd Avenue. 12 5 Geometric Representation: Line Suggested Attributes: Mode of use, type of facility, Standalone Agency Project, Future Developer Improvement, Element of Broader Planned Agency Project. Distinguish by whether gap is on City, MDT or County right of way. For residential sidewalks with sidewalk only on one side it may require a city policy for desired sidewalks should be provided on both sides. FHWA recommends areas with 4 dwelling units per acre and greater to have sidewalks on both sides of the street. City Implementation: Many gaps identified in this criterion will likely be reflected in previous planning documents such as the 2023 Parks, Recreation and Active Transportation Plan, or the 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan. Missing sidewalks could be batched in order of importance into groups of projects of a certain value based on length. This may make it easier to implement from the city perspective as standalone efforts. 13 6 Area Gap Description: An area gap is defined as a distinct neighborhood or otherwise definable part of the city that entirely lacks a particular type of active transportation facility. City Utility: This type of gap is likely to be the most useful in an illustrative context. It will convey the message to the public and city staff where there are parts of Bozeman that are underserved with a particular facility type. Examples: • An area of the city that lacks sidewalks at a neighborhood level • An area of the city that lacks bicycle facilities • A corridor of roadway lacking appropriate crossings for which the nearest crossing requires a lengthy detour Example: An example of a part of Bozeman that lacks sidewalks on its residential streets would be the “Tree” streets off of Highland Blvd. Geometric Representation: Polygon Suggested Attributes: What’s missing (e.g. sidewalks, bike lanes, improved crossings.) Any definable reason as to why identified infrastructure is missing. Examples may be an area annexed in from county, or an area that was developed when sidewalks were not required by the city. City Implementation: Depending on the gap and reason for it, the City may choose to acknowledge a gap with no further action or may scope and area or corridor study to add some or all missing facilities. 14 7 Experiential Gap Description: Primarily applicable to shared use paths and on-street bikeways. An experiential gap is defined as existing sections of street or trail which do not offer a consistent or as comfortable or attractive an experience as upstream and downstream segments. This may result in some types of users not travelling due to a reduction in experience quality. City Utility: This type of gap will be useful later during the prioritization criterion process and should be discussed further then. Careful consideration should be given to a common understanding of this gap type as experience may be subjective to the individual. Includes: • A section of bike line along busier or more uncomfortable roadway where the experience varies from adjacent sections of roadway. • Segments that have experience issues caused by lack of winter snow removal or other seasonal conditions or poor maintenance (e.g. crumbling asphalt, overgrown vegetation, etc.). • A wide separated sidewalk that transitions to a narrow curb-tight sidewalk. • Inappropriate facility types for functional classification. Examples: o Presence of narrow bike lane along arterial road (higher speed, higher volume) without a shared use path • Crosswalks across slip lanes (e.g. Harmon Stream Blvd.) • Crosswalks with high conflict potential due to high-volume right-on-red vehicle turning movements • Crossings subject to long signal phases Example: A shared use path terminating and reappearing along a street such as multiple sections along Oak Street west of North 19th Ave. Geometric Representation: Point, Line, Polygon Suggested Attributes: Reason for listing (text field). Potential linkage with Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis. City Implementation: Experiential gap may provide added emphasis to prioritize implementation of a particular gap. 15 8 Network Gap Description: Gaps are identified paths and trails that would enhance the quality, extent, and especially the connectivity of the existing active transportation network – particularly if the facility does not meet the criteria of a linear gap. These gaps represent opportunities for improvement and future enhancement. City Utility: Note: this type of gap may include previously planned facilities in greenfield sites in the PRAT or Bozeman TMP that do not constitute a linear gap due to not connecting to an existing facility. Examples: • Previously planned trails on greenfield sites that do not feature connections to existing facilities • Enhancements to the trail system reflecting a visionary or idealized trail network Example 1: Creating a new natural surface trail along the stream corridor would enhance the connectivity of existing paths. Geometric Representation: Line Suggested Attributes: Type of future facilities to be provided, form of future implementation (developer or city/MDT), Requires right-of- way acquisition, requires bridge or other major infrastructure. City Implementation: Network gaps are important to acknowledge, though they may not need to be visualized fully with the linear gaps as they will be numerous, particularly in areas of the city that are or will be under development. 16 9 Frequently Asked Questions Several questions and answers are provided below to further clarify the gap definitions provided. Are all streets without a bicycle facility a gap? Any street lacking a bicycle facility that is identified in an existing bike facility recommendation (PRAT, 2017 TMP, etc.) should be a gap. Typically, this will exclude low volume, low speed residential streets. Is a major street lacking convenient alternative routes a gap (e.g. Main/Huffine, North 7th)? Yes. A project need not necessarily address the exact gap but could provide parallel alternative accommodation. Is a major street without a bicycle facility a gap if there are adjacent routes with high quality facilities? Yes. A gap need not have a direct solution but should still be identified. If there's a sidewalk on only one side of a narrow, low volume two lane road, is the side of the road without a sidewalk considered a sidewalk gap? Yes. FHWA suggests four dwelling units per acre as a threshold for both sides. Can there be a gap if one side of the road has a shared use path? E.g. is College Street between 11th and 19th Avnues, or the east side of Highland Boulevard? There's no sidewalks or bike lanes, but there's a great shared use path. Yes, there is a sidewalk gap on the side of the road without a sidewalk or shared use path. If sidewalks are missing from BOTH sides of the road (e.g. S 3rd Ave) is that one gap or two? Two. 17 Memorandum REPORT TO:Transportation Board FROM:Nick Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering Bob Murray, Project Engineer SUBJECT:North 27th Avenue – Cattail to Baxter Work Session MEETING DATE:July 24, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Policy Discussion RECOMMENDATION:Provide policy guidance regarding the North 27th Avenue project STRATEGIC PLAN:4.3 Strategic Infrastructure Choices: Prioritize long-term investment and maintenance for existing and new infrastructure. BACKGROUND:Development of large scale commercial and residential in the North 19th area has created a need for an additional north south street connection. North 27th has previously been constructed from Durston to Baxter and from Cattail to Valley Center Road, but only a small portion of it exists between Baxter and Cattail. This project will complete that final critical link and also add connectivity to the multimodal network in this area of the city. Construction of this portion of roadway will also allow for additional infill development on adjacent properties. The design was included in the FY24 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and construction and right of way acquisition in FY25. Morrison Maiele was selected and retained to complete the design of project. They are nearing completion of the predesign phase and a number of decisions need to be made in order for the project to continue on to the preliminary and final design phases: Typical Section: The Transportation Plan called for completion of a 3-lane urban collector for this section of roadway. There is, however an overhead power line that runs the entire length along the section line. The consultant reviewed the possibility of installing the 3-lane section west of the power line, but determined this would still require relocation of the power, or acquisition of additional right of way. Moving the power would be at the City’s expense since it predates the existence of City right of way. As an alternative, the consultant looked at utilizing a typical section with a median to house the power line similar to what currently exists between Baxter and Durston. It would include one lane in each direction, the median, and dedicated turn bays at all intermediate intersections. It would not include parking, on street bike lanes or standard sidewalk. In lieu of the bike lanes 18 and sidewalk, shared use paths are being proposed on both sides of the street. N. 27th and Baxter Intersection: At this intersection, either a roundabout or signal will adequately handle the projected 2044 traffic volumes. Installation of a roundabout has a number of significant impacts that make it a far less feasible option. There are a number of power poles and luminaires at or near the intersection that would need to be relocated. Of particular concern is the pole in the existing median nose on the north side of Baxter. The City had pay to relocate this pole a few years ago with the construction of Baxter at a cost of $260,000. Additionally, a roundabout would require a significant amount of right of way in all four quadrants, three of which are fully developed parcels. For these reasons, the recommended alternative for this intersection is the installation of a traffic signal. N.27th and Cattail Intersection: The projected traffic volumes at this intersection are not high enough to meet traffic signal warrants which precludes it from consideration. All way stop control would work in the short term but would fail as the traffic volumes increase prompting another project to fix the intersection. A roundabout will continue to operate at a level of service A at the projected 2044 traffic volumes. It will require right of way in all four corners, but only one is developed, and the roundabout can be shifted to minimize the impacts to that lot. Installation of a roundabout is the recommended alternative at this intersection. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:Concurrence with the recommended section – median, one driving lane each direction, boulevards, shared use path on both sides, no parking, no on street bike lane. Concurrence with installation of a traffic signal at Baxter and 27th. Concurrence with installation of a roundabout at Cattail and 27th. ALTERNATIVES:See discussion above. FISCAL EFFECTS:The project is currently funded in the CIP (SIF152) with a total budget of $12,340,000. This includes engineering, construction and right of way acquisition. Attachments: 0417096_RoadPlans.pdf Report compiled on: July 17, 2024 19 OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHPTVTVTVTVEE DTTOHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPTVTXOHP OHP OHP OHP OHPTTTTTMW MWMWMWOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHPTVTVTVTVEE DTTOHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPTVTXOHP OHP OHP OHP OHPTTTTTMW MWMWMW101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00 110+00 111+00 112+00 113+00 114+00 115+00 116+00 N0°17'44"E VERIFY SCALE! THESE PRINTS MAY BE REDUCED. LINE BELOW MEASURES ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. MODIFY SCALE ACCORDINGLY! 2024COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.BY N:\0417\096 - N. 27TH\ACAD\SHEETS\0417096_ROAD_SHEETS_ALT1.DWGREVISIONS DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: Q.C. REVIEW DATE: BY: 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle PLOTTED BY:BRYAN VANDERLOOS ON Jul/15/2024 NORTH 27TH AVENUE EXTENSION CENTER MEDAIN ALONG POWER POLES ALTERNATIVE 1 0417.096 1 RD-1 KM BEV JRN 50 10025500 SCALE IN FEET   TAPER DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM DUE TO POWER POLE LOCATION EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB 45' FUTURE STREET EASEMENT EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY REMOVE EXISTING FENCE RELOCATE EX. TELEPHONE PEDESTAL (BY OTHERS) RELOCATE EX. TV PEDESTAL (BY OTHERS) 10' SHARED-USE PATH 10' SHARED-USE PATH TAPER DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM DUE TO POWER POLE LOCATIONSARTAIN STRAWHIDE RIDGERELOCATE EX. TELEPHONE PEDESTAL (BY OTHERS) 20 OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHPTVT FTVTVIOHPTOHPOHPTVTMWMWMW MWOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHPTVT FTVTVIOHPTOHPOHPTVTMWMWMW MWOHPOHP117+00 118+00 119+00 120+00 121+00 122+00 123+00 124+00 125+00 126+00 127+00 128+00 129+00129+14 N0°17'44"E 200+00 201+0 0 202+00 203+ 0 0 204+00 205+00206+00207+00208+00PC 2 0 2 + 7 8 . 4 9 PRC 204+29.08PT 205+14.08 PC 208+14.48 VERIFY SCALE! THESE PRINTS MAY BE REDUCED. LINE BELOW MEASURES ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. MODIFY SCALE ACCORDINGLY! 2024COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.BY N:\0417\096 - N. 27TH\ACAD\SHEETS\0417096_ROAD_SHEETS_ALT1.DWGREVISIONS DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: Q.C. REVIEW DATE: BY: 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle PLOTTED BY:BRYAN VANDERLOOS ON Jul/15/2024 NORTH 27TH AVENUE EXTENSION CENTER MEDAIN ALONG POWER POLES ALTERNATIVE 1 0417.096 2 RD-2 KM BEV JRN 50 10025500 SCALE IN FEET   EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING POWER POLE DO NOT DISTURB 45' FUTURE STREET EASEMENT EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTINUATION VARIES DEPENDINGON ROUNDABOUT OPTION10' SHARED-USE PATH 10' SHARED-USE PATH RELOCATE EX. TELEPHONE PEDESTAL (BY OTHERS) RELOCATE EX. TELEPHONE PEDESTAL (BY OTHERS) 21 X X XXXX X X X X X X X X XXXX X X XOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP FTVTVIXXXXXXOHPOHPOHPOHPMWMWOHPOHPOHPArm 1 - Alignment - 27th Ave Alt 2 (South)Arm 1 - Al ignment - 27th Ave A lt 2R1 / V1 : 161.79 ft / 21.55 mphR2 / V2: 50.82 ft / 14 .18 mphR3 / V3 : 278.05 ft / 26 .40 mphR4 / V4: N/A R5 / V5 : 116.86 ft / 19 .13 mphDeflec t ion: 0.00 ft Arm 1 - Alignment - Cattail (East)Arm 1 - Al ignment - Cat tai lR1 / V1 : N /A R2 / V2 : N /A R3 / V3 : N /A R4 / V4 : 45 .58 f t / 13.65 mphR5 / V5 : 68 .94 f t / 15.81 mphDefle c t ion : 0 .00 f t Arm 2 - Alignment - Cattail (North)Arm 2 - A lignmen t - Ca tta ilR1 / V1: 115 .85 ft / 19 .07 mphR2 / V2: 190 .42 ft / 22 .89 mphR3 / V3: 356 .87 ft / 29 .04 mphR4 / V4: 44.95 ft / 13 .58 mphR5 / V5: N/A Deflect ion: 0 .00 ft Roundabout 1X X XXXX X X X X X X X X XXXX X X XOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP FTVTVIXXXXXXOHPOHPOHPOHPMWMWOHPOHPOHP124+00 125+00 126+00 127+00 128+00 129+00129+14 202+0 0 203+ 0 0 204+00 205+00206+00207+00P C 2 0 2 + 7 8 . 4 9 PRC 204+29.08PT 205+14.08 VERIFY SCALE! THESE PRINTS MAY BE REDUCED. LINE BELOW MEASURES ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. MODIFY SCALE ACCORDINGLY! 2024COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.BY N:\0417\096 - N. 27TH\ACAD\SHEETS\0417096_ROAD_SHEETS_ALT1.DWGREVISIONS DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: Q.C. REVIEW DATE: BY: 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle PLOTTED BY:BRYAN VANDERLOOS ON Jul/15/2024 NORTH 27TH AVENUE EXTENSION ROUNDABOUT 1 CENTER MEDIAN ALONG POWER POLES ALTERNATIVE 1 0417.096 3 RD-3 KM BEV JRN 30 6015300 SCALE IN FEET   CONTINUATION VARIES DEPENDINGON ROUNDABOUT OPTION22 X X XXXX X X X X X X X X XXXX X X XOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP FTVTVIXXXXXXOHPOHPOHPOHPMWMWOHPOHPOHPArm 1 - Alignment - 27th Ave Alt 2 (South)Arm 1 - A lignmen t - 27th Ave A lt 2R1 / V1: 194.23 ft / 23 .06 mphR2 / V2: 55.57 ft / 14 .64 mphR3 / V3: 284.29 ft / 26 .62 mphR4 / V4: N/A R5 / V5: 106.55 ft / 18 .50 mphDeflect ion: 0.00 ft Arm 1 - Alignment - Cattail (East)Arm 1 - Al ignment - Cat ta i lR1 / V1 : N /A R2 / V2 : N /A R3 / V3 : N /A R4 / V4 : 47.54 f t / 13.85 mphR5 / V5 : 109.14 ft / 18.66 mphDeflec tion : 0.00 ftArm 2 - Alignment - Cattail (North)Arm 2 - A lignmen t - Ca tta i lR1 / V1: 115 .57 f t / 19.05 mphR2 / V2: 91 .12 ft / 17 .48 mphR3 / V3: 302 .48 f t / 27 .26 mphR4 / V4: 47 .08 ft / 13 .80 mphR5 / V5: N/A Deflect ion: 0 .00 f t Roundabout 2X X XXXX X X X X X X X X XXXX X X XOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP FTVTVIXXXXXXOHPOHPOHPOHPMWMWOHPOHPOHP124+00 125+00 126+00 127+00 128+00 129+00129+14 202+0 0 203+ 0 0 204+00 205+00206+00207+00P C 2 0 2 + 7 8 . 4 9 PRC 204+29.08PT 205+14.08 VERIFY SCALE! THESE PRINTS MAY BE REDUCED. LINE BELOW MEASURES ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. MODIFY SCALE ACCORDINGLY! 2024COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.BY N:\0417\096 - N. 27TH\ACAD\SHEETS\0417096_ROAD_SHEETS_ALT1.DWGREVISIONS DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: Q.C. REVIEW DATE: BY: 2880 Technology Blvd West Bozeman, MT 59718 406.587.0721 www.m-m.net engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle PLOTTED BY:BRYAN VANDERLOOS ON Jul/15/2024 NORTH 27TH AVENUE EXTENSION ROUNDABOUT 2 CENTER MEDIAN ALONG POWER POLES ALTERNATIVE 1 0417.096 4 RD-4 KM BEV JRN 30 6015300 SCALE IN FEET   CONTINUATION VARIES DEPENDINGON ROUNDABOUT OPTION23